Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[Orias]

On that note there is more meaning in that statement than the entire purpose of this OP.

But I wouldn't expect you, who doesn't find meaning in the same thing I do, to understand that.

 

[Orias]

On another similar note, the bible is literally on paper.

Think about it.

 

[1robin]

The bible wasn't designed to be infallible.

I usually agree with you but this time I will have to disagree. First the only thing guaranteed was the original revelations and so designed is a word that doesn't apply to textual transmission. However if it wasn't watched over to some extent then why is it light years ahead of every other work of ancient literature. It's textual tradition is absolutely amazing, virtually supernatural. It is probably vastly greater in reliability and volume than all other ancient works combined. Regardless it is astronomically more reliable and established than any other single work of ancient history.
The modern bibles are 95% plus accurate with the oldest manuscript evidence we have. Even the 5% contains mostly irrelevant changes not effecting any doctrine and virtually all are known and notated in every bible I have used. There is no need by any common Christian that is not adequately met by any respected modern bible. If you want extremely detailed and relevant info for this specific discussion I would recommend Ehrman v/s White. Ehrman is what is being used in this discussion. He is a good scholar but his info is missrepresented in this thread. So no it is not perfect but it is extremely accurate given it's age and it's doctrine is sound.

 

[1robin]

This is nonsense.

The bible even says man is fallible, and guess who wrote it?





Trollish rhetoric, , way to make an example of yourself.

Yes they wrote it as it was dictated by God. The end result is the most remarkably accurate work by a vast amount than any other work of ancient literature. It is even used as a major resource for secular archeology and has proven secular archeologists wrong countless times. If God exists there is no restriction that would or could permit him from guaranteeing the accuracy of his words even using fallable man. Nothing prevented him from coming here and living a perfect life, I don't think a book would cause him any trouble. He never guaranteed the transmission but as the bible is more accurate than any other work of that time frame it is likely he did give it a little help. Can you get beyond statements of misguided and bitter opinion and post some facts? I have.

1. The entire textual tradition has 400,000 errors in it's known history not in any single bible as some have stated.
2. Every major modern bible is 95% accurate when compared with the oldest MS.
3. Even the bulk of the 5% are irrelevant mistakes that are known and do not effect doctrine. Even Bart Ehrman who is the most well known critic and who provided the info used in this thread agrees with this.
4. No other work in ancient history is even remotely in this ball park.
5. Even the works of Shakespear are less reliable. They still argue over titles and even if one, several, or any Shakespears even existed.
6. The bible contains 25,000 plus historical corroberations and no historical mistakes I have ever heard of and I have researched many.
7. It contains over 2000 detailed specific prophecies. All that are supposed to have been fulfilled have and over 350 plus were and concerned only the one man.
8. A single bible contains by the worst Ehrman estimates 4000 errors in 800,000 words. Almost divine preservation.
9. Major biblical events are contained in many secular contemporary writers.
10. I could go on forever as it is the most studied and cherished book in human history but I think this is suffecient.

Try some actual counter claims with some facts. Good Luck as even I am daily supprised how easy it is to defend the bible..

 

[gseeker]

That is probably why Christians are responsible for a great portion of histories most benevolent acts. That is also probably why it contains the most benevolent example of human conduct in man's history. This also explains why the some of the smartest people who have ever lived have adopted the truths it contains. It is bizarre that you think a system that forbids cruelty, inequality, theft, murder etc.....actually makes people more unjust. I wish you would say something meaningful instead of this trollish rhetoric.

Well his title does say satanist, at least he is living up to his belief system.

 

[Tonix]

Of course you can't trust the bible. The between the translation errors and the political agenda that resulted in the KJV, all you can do is hope for the best or find faith elsewhere.

EDIT: It doesn't matter if only .001% of a translation is wrong, what matters is that it is wrong. Because the mistakes simply exist, the bible is fallible. Everything else is moot.

 

[Me Myself]

I believe God is able to preserve his word. These questions can cause major conflicts with in christianity as a whole. Most of those that argue the infallibility of the bible do it so they can pick and choose which theology best suits them. like individuals that say I believe Paul was a false apostle or I believe the gnostic gospels are inspired or those that argue 1John 5:7 was added or taking the definite article out of certain scriptures like in John 1:1, so the divinity of Christ can be rejected. Now I do believe there are erroneous bible translation out there. But, I am not going to call them out by name unless asked. I used to read and study out of those translation for years until I stared realizing the agenda of these translations. As Christians we must believe that God can and did preserve his written word. And understand this; those that claim things were added and it wasn't in the original usually claim that because of there own agendas.

veryone is throwing the word "agenda" around like if it is the devil.

The way I see it, their agendas were professional correctness when talking about the text. You´ll have to prove otherwise if you want to say it was otherwise.

The "you must be born again" part seems to never have been said by Jesus for example. The passage makes sense if you understand a greek language misunderstanding between Jesus and the person he was talking to, but Jesus didn´t spoke greek, he spoke aramean.

So everyone has an (evil) agenda except the church? Oh, not naive at all buddy, not naive at all...

 

[Me Myself]

[*]It contains over 2000 detailed specific prophecies. All that are supposed to have been fulfilled have and over 350 plus were and concerned only the one man.

bull.

Put me here your fulfilled prophecies of the bible and I´ll put you equaly acceptable prophecies from other religious(or non religious) texts.

I don´t know if the last time I did this was with you, but I remember like 25 prophecies were brought up, of which like 3 weren´t obviously false or unfulfilled.

 

[Me Myself]

That is probably why Christians are responsible for a great portion of histories most benevolent acts. That is also probably why it contains the most benevolent example of human conduct in man's history. This also explains why the some of the smartest people who have ever lived have adopted the truths it contains. It is bizarre that you think a system that forbids cruelty, inequality, theft, murder etc.....actually makes people more unjust. I wish you would say something meaningful instead of this trollish rhetoric.

Killing a woman because she doesn´t bleed after sex is not just nor pro equality

 

[gseeker]

Yes they wrote it as it was dictated by God. The end result is the most remarkably accurate work by a vast amount than any other work of ancient literature. It is even used as a major resource for secular archeology and has proven secular archeologists wrong countless times. If God exists there is no restriction that would or could permit him from guaranteeing the accuracy of his words even using fallable man. Nothing prevented him from coming here and living a perfect life, I don't think a book would cause him any trouble. He never guaranteed the transmission but as the bible is more accurate than any other work of that time frame it is likely he did give it a little help. Can you get beyond statements of misguided and bitter opinion and post some facts? I have.

1. The entire textual tradition has 400,000 errors in it's known history not in any single bible as some have stated.
2. Every major modern bible is 95% accurate when compared with the oldest MS.
3. Even the bulk of the 5% are irrelevant mistakes that are known and do not effect doctrine. Even Bart Ehrman who is the most well known critic and who provided the info used in this thread agrees with this.
4. No other work in ancient history is even remotely in this ball park.
5. Even the works of Shakespear are less reliable. They still argue over titles and even if one, several, or any Shakespears even existed.
6. The bible contains 25,000 plus historical corroberations and no historical mistakes I have ever heard of and I have researched many.
7. It contains over 2000 detailed specific prophecies. All that are supposed to have been fulfilled have and over 350 plus were and concerned only the one man.
8. A single bible contains by the worst Ehrman estimates 4000 errors in 800,000 words. Almost divine preservation.
9. Major biblical events are contained in many secular contemporary writers.
10. I could go on forever as it is the most studied and cherished book in human history but I think this is suffecient.

Try some actual counter claims with some facts. Good Luck as even I am daily supprised how easy it is to defend the bible..

Since I am currently questioning my faith I have to argue several points. 1. The Jewish faith was one of the first literate religions on the earth. They were one of the first to ever write down their belief system and laws when other religions still depended on oral tradition so of course it would be more accurate than other religions of the same era. 2. Early Christians were highly illiterate and did rely on other people reading the Scripture to them and developed their own oral traditions which is likely where we get the story of the adulterous woman. 3. Because of illiteracy the Catholic church was able to take power and corrupt the Christian faith by combining it with pagan beliefs. 4. The corrupt Catholic and Greek orthodox church controlled Christianity and the Bible for a 1000 years. 5. Many powerful and highly intelligent people accepted Catholic belief to keep from being murdered. 6. We rely on the cannon to tell us what books we are supposed to accept as God given truth. 7. The only prophets were the Jews prophets their prophesying was true. There are Christian prophets but they focused on end times and none of there prophesy has been proven to be true. 8. There were multiple people claiming to be the Christ during that period of time. 9. There are multiple historical conflicts in the Bible where two different accounts were given for the same event. Not that it maters in the new testament since most of what we think as of the Bible wasn't written until years after the fact. Likely.

 

[Tonix]

That is probably why Christians are responsible for a great portion of histories most benevolent acts.

Please, Christianity has also been the cause of the most horrific acts in history. The Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisitions, The Crusades, The murder and subjugation of the Indians, and the holocaust..... Just to name a few.

 

[sojourner]

On another similar note, the bible is literally on paper.

Think about it.

Interesting to note, however, that it wasn't always. All of it (with the exception of the epistles) was, at one time, most likely oral tradition.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Due to 2000 years of scribe errors between 300,000 and 400,000 different errors between ancient manuscripts including entire sections of Scripture not even in the oldest manuscripts, "the adulteress woman and mark 16:9 onward", how much can you trust the Bible?

Absolutely not.

I've been thinking about this because it's a question a pastoral committee is asking me.

I grew up believing that the Scriptures are infallible. When I learned Greek, I started to doubt it because of all the possibilities in translation. If the Bible were perfect, it would have had to have been preserved perfectly, otherwise it doesn't matter.

Yes, some argue that the originals are infallible, and this is patronizing. We don't have the original manuscripts, so it doesn't matter if they are infallible. We cannot say that "the Bible is infallible" because we know that it's not. Reaching back to the originals is more than a little stupid, particularly considering that there are tens of thousands of manuscripts and no two of them perfectly agree.

What made me lose all faith in infallibility is when I saw the earliest Greek manuscripts and codexes. Those manuscripts are quite messy, far from anything remotely close to perfection. These early manuscripts are just a few hundred years earlier than the originals, and they don't even contain the same material!

Now, about faith. The good news is that Christian faith doesn't rely on the perfection of the Bible. We can trust that it is inspired because it inspires.

Another thing: if the Bible were perfect, we would not be able to relate to it. It's true that a lot of people don't know what to make of it, but that's not out of a sense that it's perfect - except, of course, the people who believe that it is.

 

[gseeker]

Absolutely not.

I've been thinking about this because it's a question a pastoral committee is asking me.

I grew up believing that the Scriptures are infallible. When I learned Greek, I started to doubt it because of all the possibilities in translation. If the Bible were perfect, it would have had to have been preserved perfectly, otherwise it doesn't matter.

Yes, some argue that the originals are infallible, and this is patronizing. We don't have the original manuscripts, so it doesn't matter if they are infallible. We cannot say that "the Bible is infallible" because we know that it's not. Reaching back to the originals is more than a little stupid, particularly considering that there are tens of thousands of manuscripts and no two of them perfectly agree.

What made me lose all faith in infallibility is when I saw the earliest Greek manuscripts and codexes. Those manuscripts are quite messy, far from anything remotely close to perfection. These early manuscripts are just a few hundred years earlier than the originals, and they don't even contain the same material!

Now, about faith. The good news is that Christian faith doesn't rely on the perfection of the Bible. We can trust that it is inspired because it inspires.

Another thing: if the Bible were perfect, we would not be able to relate to it. It's true that a lot of people don't know what to make of it, but that's not out of a sense that it's perfect - except, of course, the people who believe that it is.

Faith is great but faith should be based on evidence. If that evidence is so convoluted then how can you have any faith in the information that is presented? I find it highly redundant to accept faith based on faith alone.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Faith is great but faith should be based on evidence. If that evidence is so convoluted then how can you have any faith in the information that is presented? I find it highly redundant to accept faith based on faith alone.

Faith isn't faith if it is based on evidence. That's how some other things, like science for example, gets its validity.

Faith gets its validity in the human experience. Faith is valid inasmuch as it enriches the human being.

 

[gseeker]

Faith doesn't have to be without evidence, without evidence there is a thin line between faith and ignorance. Believing something just for the sake of believing something even for the sake of the spirit, its empty especially when what you believe clams to be the ultimate truth.

 

[1robin]

bull.

Put me here your fulfilled prophecies of the bible and I´ll put you equaly acceptable prophecies from other religious(or non religious) texts.

I don´t know if the last time I did this was with you, but I remember like 25 prophecies were brought up, of which like 3 weren´t obviously false or unfulfilled.

No one has disproven a single prophecy of mine that I can remember. The last person wanted 5 to disprove. I gave him eight and never heard from him again. I will get you a few soon. If you are going to post prophecies from other religions first you must think all prophecies are true except the bible's (a strange position) and I would request that whatever ones you post are just as detailed and specific as the ones I post.

 

[BBTimeless]

Please, Christianity has also been the cause of the most horrific acts in history. The Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisitions, The Crusades, The murder and subjugation of the Indians, and the holocaust..... Just to name a few.

Claiming that the Holocaust was brought on by Christianity is absurd, sir.

 

[1robin]

Please, Christianity has also been the cause of the most horrific acts in history. The Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisitions, The Crusades, The murder and subjugation of the Indians, and the holocaust..... Just to name a few.

As far as the Indians go (of which I am one) they were not killed in general for religious reasons. It was land and gold. In fact it was smallpox and other diseases that caused 95% of the deaths. The Indians themselves were living on land they had killed their own kind to get. Yes Catholics did commit the crusades as a response to Saracens attacking pilgrims in turkey (20 -30 thousand victims) and inquisitions (about 5000 victims). Now that is way too many but is not a drop in the bucket of the atheist Stalin's 15 million, or even Hitlers racial purity that he said was justified by evolution which resulted in 50 million deaths. Or the lesser atheists like Mao, Pol Pot, (several millions more) etc.... I will take responsibility for violence done in the name of my religion but those men were acting completely contradictory to their faith and so their actions are theirs not the faith or God's. In Stalin and Hitlers case they were acting consistently with their beliefs as their beliefs do not have the capability to justify human dignity, worth, or sanctity and so we are cattle that can be butchered like cattle. Like when Richard Dawkins said It would be very hard to say that Hitler had actually done anything wrong within the atheistic evolutionary paradigm.

None of this has any effect concerning my statement the Christians have always done more than their share of good in the world. Christians also make up a large portion of the greatest doctors and scientists in human history.
They even invented the concept of the hospital, american school system, fought against slavery, spend their own money and live in primitive condition's to help the less fortunate all over the world.

 

[jasonwill2]

This is nonsense.

The bible even says man is fallible, and guess who wrote it?

Trollish rhetoric, , way to make an example of yourself.

Also of note that even if it was infallible, our corrupt minds couldn't interpret it correctly as we would always misunderstand parts of it or even entire sections as our minds are failable.

So even if it was infallible, that would be a moot point as every docrine would at least have a number of errors and falsehoods by virtue that men read it.